You are here

We are carrying out checks at Hazelwood House. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 15 April 2016

This inspection took place over one day on 4 February 2016 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on 17 December 2013 we found that the provider met all standards that we inspected.

Hazelwood House provides supported living to four adults with mental health and complex needs. People have assured shorthold tenancy agreements and their own flats within the service.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us that they felt safe within the service and well supported by staff. We saw positive and friendly interactions between staff and people. People were treated with dignity and respect.

Procedures relating to safeguarding people from harm were in place and staff understood what to do and who to report it to if people were at risk of harm. Staff had an understanding of the systems in place to protect people who could not make decisions and were aware of the legal requirements outlined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Medicines were administered safely and on time. Staff had completed training in medicines and administration. People were supported to become independent with their medicines in a structured and safe way. People understood what their medicines were and why they had been prescribed.

Risk assessments were written in collaboration with people. People were able to tell us why they had risk assessments and how risk assessments helped them identify triggers in them becoming unwell. The provider showed excellent inter-agency working and regularly shared risk assessments with mental health care professionals.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisal that helped them identify areas for learning and development. Supervisions and appraisals were used as an opportunity for staff to improve care practices.

The service focused on the recovery model of care which puts people’s individual recovery at the heart of care provided. People were positive that the home was a stepping stone to enable them to have a full and active life.

The service ensured that people had individual tailored activities that reflected their interests and goals. People attended college or had part time employment. People told us that the provider created a ‘family atmosphere’ within the home. Trips abroad and within the UK were organised by the provider and people using the service. People were encouraged to have a normal, fulfilling life and look towards the future.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and were aware of how this impacted on the people they worked with both in theory and in practice.

There was excellent communication and joined up working between the home and mental health services. Health care professionals spoke highly of the management of the service and the care the service provided.

There were regular reviews of people’s mental health. Staff knew how to refer people for both physical and mental health issues. People were involved in planning their own healthcare needs.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Staff encouraged healthy eating and helped people plan meals and recipes.

People were encouraged to have as much control and input into their care as possible. The service focused on people’s individual recovery. People told us that they wrote their own care plans and were supported by staff. Care plans were personalised to the individual and monitored through regular key working. People were positive about the care that they received from staff and felt that they were treated as individuals.

We saw that the provider encouraged innovation. A new on-line computer syste

Inspection areas



Updated 15 April 2016

The service was safe. Staff were able to tell us how to recognise abuse and knew how to report it appropriately. People were actively encouraged and supported to report concerns.

There were sufficient staff to ensure people’s needs were met.

Risks for people who used the service were identified and comprehensive risk assessments were in place to ensure known risks were mitigated against. Risk assessments were shared with healthcare professionals.

People were supported to have their medicines safely. Staff were knowledgeable about the medicines they were giving. People understood their medicines and were encouraged to be involved.



Updated 15 April 2016

The service was effective. Staff had on-going training to effectively carry out their role.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Depravation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff received regular supervision and appraisals. People were supported by staff who regularly reviewed their working practices.

Peoples healthcare needs were monitored and referrals were made when necessary to ensure their wellbeing.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink to ensure their dietary needs were met.



Updated 15 April 2016

The service was caring. People were supported and staff understood individual’s needs.

People were treated with respect and staff maintained privacy and dignity.

People were encouraged to have input into their care.

Staff treated people with dignity and were patient and kind when interacting with people.



Updated 15 April 2016

The service was responsive. People wrote their own care plans in collaboration with staff. People knew what their goals were and how they could be achieved.

Staff were knowledgeable about individual support needs, their interests, and preferences and actively supported people.

People were encouraged to have full and active lives, be part of the community and maintain relationships with family, friends and people that mattered to them.

People were encouraged to lead full and active lives including, education, employment, holidays and social activities.

A system for complaints was in place and people were encouraged to complain. People were comfortable raising issues and felt listened to.



Updated 15 April 2016

The service was well led. There was a positive and open culture that encouraged best practice and this was encouraged by management.

Staff were able to be innovative and discuss ideas that improved the quality of care for people.

Health care professionals spoke highly of the management and culture of the home.

The provider supported staff education and training to ensure knowledge and best practice was implemented in the care provided.